Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by bediger4000 | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

bediger4000

Embrace, extend, extinguish. Oldest play in the Microsoft book.

I sincerely think Microsoft can't be trusted.

View on HN

Actually this is Google's doing, you know the folks that do Chrome, that Chrome Edge builds upon.

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2595287/ublock-origin-is-off...

But by all means, keep the EEE story.

Microsoft doesn't have to do this. The chromium-based Brave has committed to supporting uBlock Origin: https://x.com/brave/status/1725622768262128006

They’ll cave eventually and walk it back if history is anything to go by.

They implement ublock origin compatible adblocking in the browser, not as an extension. Manifest v2/3 is irrelevant to brave's adblock capabilities.

And we all know what a credible organisation they are.

Sure, lets see for how long they will keep their fork.

I really doubt Brave will be able to support manifest v2 for long after chromium deletes that part of the codebase. Brave does not have the resources to maintain a fork in perpetuity. They are really just a reskin with a marketing team (privacy conscious individuals being the mark).

>They are really just a reskin with a marketing team

I dunno their adblocker is the best one I've ever used. AFAIK they built it themselves.

My policy is: don't talk about Brave. If Brave ever gets enough share to be a problem for Google et al. it will get ruined, one way or another.

Yeah and Firefox is completely under Google control already through the funding chain.

It’s not just a reskin though…

How much is actually removed? And even supporting the single main callback uBlock needs would be very meaningful.

This same conversation is being held about Vivaldi as well, as they are subject to the same thing. Unless and until people move en masse to Firefox or other, the monoculture invites abuse by those who control it. This is the new milieu of control.

It is their original play. However I think this is just “Chrome is going to do this anyway and we’re not about to write custom code to work around it.”

This. It's extremely expensive to keep core functionality like this in a fork. Every single surface that manifest v2 touches (js runtime, extension hosting, permissions, network, APIs, chrome even) that gets changed upstream has to be redone to account for v2. Every new system built into Chrome that only works with v3 has to be effectively back ported to v2.

The only other option is to keep v2 in chromium itself and have Chrome disable it... While still paying the cost of supporting it in all new feature dev.

There's no world where Microsoft spins up a new engineering team solely to deal with the extra cost of keeping v2 around.

That said this sucks. I got my first internship on the Internet Explorer team by talking about how hard it was to install an ad blocker in IE, compared to Chrome.

> It's extremely expensive to keep core functionality like this in a fork

Modularity in SW is still a challenge after 50 years of progress.

No one cares for specifically V2, it's just V3 is intentionally crippled. Just allow functionality required for more feature-rich extensions like uBO and everyone will forget V2 very fast. V3 does allow extensions to monitor and sell network data (no privacy improvements), but blocks modifications (no cutting out ads)

This play is actually in Google's book. Microsoft is going along for the ride.

Looks like this was a bug in Edge. I dont see this prompt anymore. Also, the pop-up message said Chrome and not Edge.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com